ABSTRACT
In form the issue lies between elite groups, who operate within rules of the game, varying from one theater of action to another. In a society of bureaucratic absolutism, as described by Gaetano Mosca in The Ruling Class, or Milovan Djilas in The New Class, the elements of popular decision have been excluded, except for extreme pressures and explosive action. But in a free society, where any man may speak his piece, and where there are effective means of popular participation, the situation of the official group is changed. It becomes an oligarchy which is open and flexible, and which, short of revolution, can be made responsible for what it has done. In political behavior, then, the issue may resolve itself into this: what groups come closest in their political rapprochement with common men, or with men who function outside of the structures of power? The elected reperesentatives of the people are not necessarily those who are closest in rapprochement with the common man, nor is the bureaucracy, the management of industry, nor the persons who hold power within the organized professions. In a most specific sense, those members of the elite who adhere to the folkways and mores of the society are closest to common men. There is often a regional flavor to the understanding between elites and the workers of the world. The traditions most forceful in the support such members of an elite give to politics are regional, religious, and the emotional or intuitive adherence to the symbols of political parties. One thing, however, seems fairly certain: effective elites are organized and disciplined, as are the professions or the party organizations, while the individuals known as common or mass men do not characteristically form organizations primarily for ~olit ical purposes, though they may do so in business, union, or fraternal and family associations.
